I thought it was "advanced" infantry, although I'm unsure what this actually means. I could just be another term for "high-level", although I dont recall reading "advanced heavies" anywhere.

In any case, I dont think that the term "heavy" really has much use for measuring a units power, as you can have dwagons, cloth golems, hobgobwins, megalogwiffs, Parson and (I think) spidews all in the same category, and that seems to be a pretty broad one. So far the only real benefit of knowing if a unit is heavy is being able to determine if they can use a flying mount and (generally) enter tunnels or not.

_________________No, no. It hit him in the brain because it killed him. - Dante

Way back when I was playing cardboard squares on hex paper wargames, a heavy infantry unit was often considered to have big weapons with a large punch, but with less move either because they were carrying it themselves or were in some vehicle that needed to pick out a route. Some HI units were considered to come with their own APC equivalent and got a defense bonus, and some were considered to have engineering capability and were more capable of entrenching for a defensive bonus than regular infantry. I also remember rules for movement in which if you didn't want to use their full attack, you could make them move at regular infantry rate or faster.

KISS was full of hobgobwins, and they were considered to be good fighters. Given that the hobgobwin survivors of the fall are all promoted to heavy and don't have to run around as the attack is coming to them, I am expecting them to do serious damage.--

On a side note, people have been predicting doom for Parson. Me, I'm wondering about the checkov's gun of all the stuff he's carrying. Do we know any more about the magicitems he's carrying with him, other than the Staff of Suckage somehow preventing the casting of spells on him?

Vinny talks about "Basic Infantry", "Advanced Infantry" and then says "Heavies" at the battle of the pass. However he was making an analogy about how the warlord bonus stacked up rather than unit type.

We know Twolls (and Parson) are Heavies.

Hobgobwins do not start out as Heavies, but can be promoted UP to Heavy, so they must start out really close to the deviding line.

All the other definite Heavies I think we have seen have been Dollamancy animated things like the Cloth Golems, although the sausage dog battering ram might fall into the heavy class.

I suspect Dwagons are ... roughly on a par with those Cloth Golems Ace is commanding when used as ground units

This interests me greatly. I hope we get to see an even face-off between the two. The attack on the column way back in TBFGK wasn't a clear enough indicator, and that's the only time I can recall that we've seen the units come into contact.

I was thinking more in terms of their resistance to, and killing ability, vis-a-vis regular infantry when I said that, but yeah, it would be pretty cool to see some hot Heavy-on-Heavy action. So far all we've ever seen is Heavies vs Infantry.

OK, everybody, from now on I'll bear in mind how things are around here No hard feelings, and I'll feel free to be an ass myself once in a while, at least once I better understand the local flavor of netiquette

Excellent! What people usually get called on is faulty logic and drawing conclusions they insist are accurate when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. If you are able to support your arguments you'll find that your logic might be able to prevail against even seemingly overwhelming resistance to your crushing of someone's pet theories.

noname_hero wrote:

shamelessmerc wrote:

<He-man real-world reference to how few people actually died (zero, in case anyone missed it) when jumping off of a low wall.

Can you believe that that is exactly the sort of post I hoped to see?

See now, why? This is a real world reference which has no validity on the story setting. We've had the mechanics of falling within this setting fairly carefully explained, so why fall back on some non-relevant example and give it credence which it does not deserve within the boundaries of the story?

multilis wrote:

"Age of Wonders II" These days you buy older games like that as digital downloads for a few dollars.

Good Old Games (GOG) is an excellent vendor for such treasures. I bought Master of Orion, Master of Orion II, and Master of Magic from them for something like under $7.00 US.

sheepfly wrote:

This is why you put Parson in charge of strategy and not just tactics, instead of dumping CWL status on him after everything's gone to sh*t. And at least HE knows not to trust Wanda's overconfidence in her influence over Jillian.

Ahem, both Parson and Sizemore questioned that 'influence.' Parson out of caution, and Sizemore out of knowledge.

shamelessmerc wrote:

(BTW, am I using the right term? Tramennis calls them Heavies when he leads them to anhiliate Captain Ford's remmnant. It causes confusion with Heavy Infantry in my mind)

I don't think that any unit other than infantry (human appearing, such as Parson and hobgobwins) has ever been referred to as being 'heavy'. Being a heavy seems to bne a special that some units can either be popped with or be promoted into. Dwagons and tchotchkes and plushies are probably just units with higher stats than your typical stabber or hobgobwin, and ones which cannot have the 'heavy' special applied to them.

_________________How using capslock wins arguments:

Zeroberon wrote:

So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

(BTW, am I using the right term? Tramennis calls them Heavies when he leads them to anhiliate Captain Ford's remmnant. It causes confusion with Heavy Infantry in my mind)

I don't think that any unit other than infantry (human appearing, such as Parson and hobgobwins) has ever been referred to as being 'heavy'. Being a heavy seems to bne a special that some units can either be popped with or be promoted into. Dwagons and tchotchkes and plushies are probably just units with higher stats than your typical stabber or hobgobwin, and ones which cannot have the 'heavy' special applied to them.

In moments, they had assembled. There were five stacks of stabbers, led by lower-level warlords who could use the experience. Behind that stood three stacks of heavies with two warlords each. These included several formidable tchotchkes and some really fine cloth golems. There were battle bears, G-RAFs and LFNs. Tramennis chose to ride in the pocket of a tankeroo. He was tempted to bring in the Dollamancer just for healing and leadership bonus to the golems, but this much was already enough to overwhelm.

In moments, they had assembled. There were five stacks of stabbers, led by lower-level warlords who could use the experience. Behind that stood three stacks of heavies with two warlords each. These included several formidable tchotchkes and some really fine cloth golems. There were battle bears, G-RAFs and LFNs. Tramennis chose to ride in the pocket of a tankeroo. He was tempted to bring in the Dollamancer just for healing and leadership bonus to the golems, but this much was already enough to overwhelm.

I stand corrected. It does seem odd to me that a 'monstrous' unit such as a tchotchke or a golem would also need the heavy special. But whatever... Perhaps that special keeps them from being able to be mounted on dwagons, or imposes other limitations which make logical sense for a large or massive unit.

_________________How using capslock wins arguments:

Zeroberon wrote:

So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.

Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.

The results of a fall have several options. We cannot take Parson's one example of falling as proof that this will occur on EVERY fall, any more than we can take Cubbins' fall as proof that all falls lead to incapacitation. May as well take a four sided die gamble. Cubbins rolled a 2, Parson rolled a 1. That doesn't discredit fall mechanisms. Wanda and Jack both fell the same distance when they harvested their dragons. Jack was fine, Wanda was incapacitated and needed the Cure scroll. Both were intentional falls, since they knew that when they harvested their mounts that they'd have no means of support. Intent vs unintentional doesn't seem to make a difference, nor does the height of the fall. It's a simple mechanic, much like the combat system. Makes it easy to learn, but hard to find the exploits.

And does it even matter for these soldiers? They are on a suicidal mission charging at combo breath attacks and stacks of dwagons. There's a chance they will die jumping off the wall. Followed by a chance of dying from poison gas/fire. Followed by a chance of dying from teeth and claws and swords. If they survive, they earn xp and possibly gain level. If they die, they will have served their purpose and screened for their king.

Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.

No zone barrier for Parson as this is own city. Zone barriers in cities only penalize attackers/allies, not units of a side who control the city.

Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.

The results of a fall have several options. We cannot take Parson's one example of falling as proof that this will occur on EVERY fall, any more than we can take Cubbins' fall as proof that all falls lead to incapacitation. May as well take a four sided die gamble. Cubbins rolled a 2, Parson rolled a 1. That doesn't discredit fall mechanisms. Wanda and Jack both fell the same distance when they harvested their dragons. Jack was fine, Wanda was incapacitated and needed the Cure scroll. Both were intentional falls, since they knew that when they harvested their mounts that they'd have no means of support. Intent vs unintentional doesn't seem to make a difference, nor does the height of the fall. It's a simple mechanic, much like the combat system. Makes it easy to learn, but hard to find the exploits.

And does it even matter for these soldiers? They are on a suicidal mission charging at combo breath attacks and stacks of dwagons. There's a chance they will die jumping off the wall. Followed by a chance of dying from poison gas/fire. Followed by a chance of dying from teeth and claws and swords. If they survive, they earn xp and possibly gain level. If they die, they will have served their purpose and screened for their king.

Right. I remembered the multiple potential outcomes from the situation room notes, but there have been several theories debating to death about various potential variables and situational modifiers, such as intentional or not, and zone barrior crossing, determining what WAS and WASN'T a fall. It was just a neat little event that I hadn't seen anyone reference yet, which which displayed several of said variables to no real evident result. Both Parson and the Dwagon left the scene with nothing more than their ego's bruised. It's entirely possible that since Parson was a GK unit inside a GK city, nothing he does constitutes a "real" fall. Which would also apply to the JS units charging into the Atrium. I'm simply of the opinion that there are the stated possible outcomes of a fall, any fall; and that the needs of thep lot/jokes will dictate what is and isn't a fall. I don't stress about it, but it's fun to keep the arguement, *ahem* debate rolling.

Well, Just to stir this up AGAIN, because it's unnecessarily chaotic but, let's not forget when Parson attempted to ride the dwagon. Top of the wall, down into the garrison. A fall which was unintentional, AND crossed a zone barrier.

We don't even know if that was a true fall. I think it stands that we don't know exactly what triggers falls, and that hopping down may or may not be tripping anything.

<Sarcastic mis-quote of previous conversation>This is a real world reference which has no validity on the story setting. We've had the mechanics of falling within this setting fairly carefully explained, so why fall back on some non-relevant example and give it credence which it does not deserve within the boundaries of the story?

Well, since you ask - because even if it WAS a silly question (which it wasn't) it's quicker and easier to politely answer it in terms that make sense to the questioner than it is to deride the question or declaim "This has been answered! Silence on this subject!".

Unless or course you misunderstand the question, misconstrue the question, or automatically assume bad faith on the part of the questioner, in which case it's much easier to blow hot air and add nothing to the discussion.

tgriff02 wrote:

Both Parson and the Dwagon left the scene with nothing more than their ego's bruised.

Not strictly true, although I don't know how you would render skin abrasions in terms of hitpoints It probably wouldn't take anything off your combat abilities, which is all The Rules care about.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum